Re: Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane's Dilemma

On 27 Apr, 19:18, "Entertained by my own EIMC"
<write_to_e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"DK" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:f0qroa$k8g$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



In article <f0o3uf$2ek...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Vend" <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f0lgfe$1bak$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What is this Haldane's Dilemma? The Wikipedia article is confusing and
unclear.

Probably because it has been a battleground of edits and counter-edits. I
would
recommend that you look at Robert Williams's web site
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane.html
with the understanding that it is biased in one direction, and then look
at
Remine's web site,
http://www1.minn.net/~science/Haldane.htm
with the understanding that it is biased in the opposite direction. You
won't
get a neutral POV in either place, but you may get more clarity.

And then, if you are ambitious, go to the primary literature.

As to the name "Haldane's Dilemma", it was coined by van Valen who
apparently
thought that the 'dilemma' was something facing a species - if it 'tries'
to
evolve too fast, it goes extinct, but if it evolves too slow, it probably
faces
eventual extinction as well.

ReMine, however, interprets it as a dilemma facing evolutionary
biologists - if
they claim that evolution proceeded as fast as they might like to think it
did,
then they must admit that the evolution occurred by a process other than
natural
selection. Or so ReMine claims.

In the face of new dogs evolving out of wolves (arguably different
species,
down to reproductive barrier for some varieries) practically in no time,
the whole argument seems quite pointless.

Had you chosen almost any other available such argument I would stick my
nose up in the air and say, "I could also have told you so" :-> -- or, IOW,
that those who mine ReMine's red herring might be boning one that - who
knows - have religious roots?.

One of the reasons why I am pessimistic about your prospects of "pulling the
rug" on this altogether doubtful dilemma by referring to the evolution from
wolves to today's dogs, is folk's fondness for fractioning natural selection
into natural and "artificial" (i.e. dogs being selectively bred by people).

Artificial selection is a special case of natural selection, thus if a
limit exists for natural selection, it must apply to artificial
selection.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwins morality
    ... > selection is genetically determinist and based on sacrificing one's self ... SOMETHING THAT NO OTHER SPECIES HAS EVER ASPIRED ... If natural selection followed the classical models ... to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Ray Martinez: evolution refuted.
    ... favor of evolution is false based on the fact that natural selection, ... want to know why "natural selection... ... *if* you had evidence that the mutations or selection were ... There is no evidence that natural selection is teleologic - I agree. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection
    ... that question is NOT a disproof of Newton's theory of gravity? ... Darwin write down the differential equations that needs to be solved ... nobody claims that Natural Selection and Random Mutation (I ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
    ... problems of implications and connotations of ordinary language. ... Are triangles, circles, natural and selection not ordinary words? ... Since when did selection and natural take on a technical meaning? ... The term natural selection has no meaning either in works of fiction, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez: evolution refuted.
    ... favor of evolution is false based on the fact that natural selection, ... Which assumption of the process of natural selection is wrong, ... That mutation is teleologically foretold? ...
    (talk.origins)